Hacker News Reader

Comment by elorant | Hacker News Reader

Great. Let's end the war in Ukraine and start WW3 with Iran.

[threat of] Hitting on Iran may stop the flow of drones and ballistic missiles to Russia and to the Houthis which would be helpful to the ending both wars.

Edit: for the people, like the commenter below, who happens to be unaware about that major piece of the war (in particular these drones have been the main tool devastating Ukrainian infrastructure)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russia-lau...

Learning on HN that Russian war effort is dependent on Iranian missiles and drones .

… and North Korean artillery shells.

s/artillery shells/canon fodder/

What do you think is the most likely course of escalation leading to WW3?

I'm not asking for much here, I just want any potential path of escalation, and everyone can judge for themselves how likely it is. If the US performs airstrikes against Iran, what can Iran do that would make WW3 more likely?

Sure, here's one. Iran hits US military bases in UAE and Bahrain. Houthi rebels launch long-range missile attacks at Saudi Arabia's and UAE's oil installations. Hezbollah attacks Israel. At the strait of Hormuz Iran directly targets US and European oil tankers. US is left with no other choice than a large scale military mobilization in the area. You can take it from there.

Are you saying the US would respond to all that with a ground invasion in Iran?

A ground invasion of Iran seems extremely difficult, and would be very unpopular, and it's still unclear how that would lead to a wider world conflict.

A ground invasion is an inevitability if you start bombing strategic installations.

Why? The US can just air strike anything forever without ever doing a ground invasion. What objective would the US be seeking that could only be achieved by a ground invasion?

If you don't get boots on the ground you can't change the regime. Bombings alone would only weaken the infrastructure and probably lead local people to hate you even more. Plus in a conflict the opposite side retaliates. Once body bags start pilling back home the general public will demand an invasion.

I'm sure a precision strike at this facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Consultative_Assembly would change the regime somewhat, and make many people currently suffering from them rather happy. Could probably be sold as womans liberation.

And how would you safeguard the next regime? With F35s and bombers?

Hrm. Dunno exactly. Probably give them the option to join the Kurdish Republic of Free Rojava, minus the Barsani-Clan. Otherwise give them the nukes they always wanted. Shining (b)right over their heads. Like the cleanest zoroastrian purification possible.

So eventually you'll nuke them. But you don't think that will start WW3. Okey dokey.

I think the dangers of nuclear war are overblown in public perception.

Regarding räydiäyshun alone, there have been 512 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests since 1945, and were still here. Maybe with a little bit higher cancer rate, but that could have been caused by many other things, by unwise introduction of byproducts of industrialisation. Hrmm. Lemme ssink...industry...oh yeah, coal power! Even moar räydiäshun!1!! Whee!

Then there is the theory of Hormesis. Which could be applied to at least some forms of weak radiation, in spite of only a few very vocal, nay-saying kooks. See many places around the world, were people are bathing and breathing in radone-rich caves and waters, or beaches in Brazil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Gastein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsqaltubo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarapari

and many more, just without entry in the global cybernetic landfill.

So, away with the 'glo-in-ze-dark' stuff, except for one last thing:

Spontane Verdampfung führt zur Entkrampfung! (Spontaneous evaporation leads to relaxation)

Hrmyah, whaddäbbout WW3? Depending on where you are, that already happened, when seen as total devastation of ones environment. Does it matter when it glows in the dark by itself? Does it have to, to make ones situation even more miserable? Do I care?

No. I prefer a rather cold, zoomed out view, as envisioned in the commandments of the Georgia Guidestones, proudly riding my trusty Blucifer.

Ze Ztarz! My Destination! (One way or another, I don't bother)

Now please excuse me, I need to have the snake tatto reapplied to my dick, otherwise Jizzbella disapproves...…

Was Desert Storm/Shield WWIII? Was whatever the other Bush's desert excursions WWIII? Why would anything like what you described become WWIII?

Because Syria is fragile, and so is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen. Those are all countries where Iran has very strong influence. The world isn't the same as it was 20 years ago, and Iran is way more powerful than what Iraq was back then.

...without actually ending the war in Ukraine.

There's a huge middle ground between WW3 and allowing Iran to fund and coordinate terrorism.

A strike on them to correct their malicious behavior is far away from a global war.

I didn't see much concern about Ukraine leading to WW3 until Trump allowed peace talks to start.

During the Biden administration peace was not discussed and not even considered an option by many.

Any type of action has a reaction. Iran can target US military bases all around Middle East. They can damage tankers passing the Persian Gulf causing havoc to worldwide markets.

They already are damaging ships via proxy support of Houthis.

Deterrence sometimes means applying force.

Iran won't be able to do anything if the US actually applies force to them.

And I highly doubt anyone will actually come to their defense, which is an ingredient for WW3.

Houthis had stopped their attacks on ships during the ceasefire.

I think forcing Israel to maintaining their ceasefire is a significantly easier way of unblocking the water passageways.

You know, with a bonus of preventing hundreds of people being killed everyday in Gaza too.

Iran has to be worried about being carpet bombed into nothingness though, so theres only so much they can escalate

>I didn't see much concern about Ukraine leading to WW3 until Trump allowed peace talks to start.

Trump has regularly used WW3 rhetoric about Ukraine:

2022: https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-warns-world-war-3-accide...

2023: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-world-war-iowa-waterlo...

2024: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Obviously the person who started the peace talks was talking about Ukraine leading to WW3.

I was talking about everyone that said the gist of "if we allow peace talks, Russia wins", mainly here.

It's the sentiment that led to the war persisting for these last few years.

No talks from the Biden admin, no public outrage, just support. And constant funding to continue it.

> I was talking about everyone that said the gist of "if we allow peace talks, Russia wins", mainly here.

I have never seen this... anywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com